The Catholic Church still seems more concerned for its reputation than for its victims

Judy Courtin

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse today begins its second week of hearings into the Melbourne Response, the internal complaints process for the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, established by George Pell in 1996. The guiding principles of the Melbourne Response include a pastoral and compassionate approach, the truth, and healing of victims.

Although Pell's evidence dominated the media last week, he is not the only player or chieftain associated with the Melbourne Response. The inauguration of this process was lawyer-led, as is its administration and management.

Part of my doctoral research has examined whether the Melbourne Response has delivered justice for victims and their families. In many cases it has not. But the reasons for such a profound failure and the impact on victims of this failure are critical, and they must be tackled if there is to be any justice.

The first problem with the Melbourne Response is its pervasive culture of legalism.

The initial contact for a victim attending this process is the independent commissioner, a senior Queen's counsel (QC), who investigates allegations and makes a finding. The chair of the compensation panel is a senior counsel (SC). Legal counsel for the independent commissioner is the same counsel who acts on behalf of the Archdiocese of Melbourne. It couldn't get much cosier.

There is a policy vacuum at the Melbourne Response in relation to victims being advised to obtain their own legal representation. Indeed, some vulnerable and uninformed victims have been actively dissuaded from doing so. This is very serious: when a victim signs a deed of release as a condition of receiving ex gratia compensation their legal rights are affected adversely.

Advertisement

Normally Victorian legal practitioners are bound by the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules, which are enabled by the Legal Profession Act 2004. These rules state that the legal practitioner (acting on behalf of their client) must not assert that a person do something that might affect their legal rights, without first suggesting that that person seek independent legal advice.

It is forcefully argued by Pell and the lawyers at the Melbourne Response that they are independent of the Archdiocese and, therefore, not part of a normal lawyer-client relationship. This may be true in a strict legal sense. But in practice such "black letter law" distinctions mean nothing to victims who have neither the legal knowledge nor equal bargaining power to protect themselves.

Victims' experiences with the independent commissioner have left some feeling intimidated, victimised, demoralised, disempowered, confronted and distressed. Victims' experiences with the chairman of the compensation panel have left some feeling bullied, dominated and overborne.

A second problem with the Melbourne Response is that, as my research indicates, it often does not bring healing to victims. Instead, it sometimes causes more damage in that victims are traumatised and psychiatrically harmed. Some feel deceived by the Melbourne Response; that they are met with distrust, arrogance and confrontation. One woman said: "If you're prepared to fight the wrongs ... they will destroy you ... they destroy the mind [and] they don't give a damn about the dead victim."

The counselling arm of the Melbourne Response, Carelink, is coordinated by a registered psychologist. Some victims' experiences of this part of the process are that is was gruelling and lacking in care and compassion.

With respect to the truth, the church has maintained that concealment of the truth of the sex offences ended in 1996 when Pell became archbishop and established the Melbourne Response. My research shows otherwise: that the truth sometimes continues to be concealed at the Melbourne Response through minimisation, suppression, manipulation and exploitation.

There has been minimisation of the offences – their severity and their lifelong impact on victims. Important information given in good faith by victims about perpetrators has sometimes been contained within the process rather than being used to bring offenders to account.

In summary, I believe the Melbourne Response was designed to control victims, contain the sex abuse problems and protect the church.

If this process is fully independent of the Catholic Church, as is asserted, then the lawyers and others who are paid by the Archdiocese of Melbourne to manage and operate it must be held accountable for what has sometimes amounted to a fresh round of primary abuse of victims.

But the issue of accountability does not stop there. Pell in his evidence last week compared the legal responsibilities of the behemoth that is the Catholic Church with a trucking company. He got it half right. If a truckie sexually assaults a hitchhiker the employer would most likely not be held liable, because the criminal assault was committed outside the normal course of the truck driver's employment.

But a trucking company, unlike the church, does not entrust children to its care – to educate them, care for them and to teach them, including by example, the moral values and teachings of Jesus Christ. The risk of children being sexually assaulted in schools and parishes is markedly higher than by workers in a trucking company, and it is precisely this risk for which the church must be responsible.

The Royal Commission has a mammoth task on its hands, including to help bring about justice for victims and their families. When it produces its recommendations the Federal Government must implement them. Only then will justice have a chance to prevail.

Judy Courtin is a lawyer and a doctoral researcher at Monash University's law faculty, doing research into sexual assault and the Catholic Church. Email: jcourtin@netspace.net.au